Worst OA in Existence 0

[Rick2you2]

Okay, so the title is a little exaggerated. But after seeing the thread on the "Greatest OA in Existence", and how it involves what may be the most valuable works out there, I started to wonder what art would be least likely to appreciate, or even depreciate over the years. By artist, topic or subject matter, whatever comes to mind.

For example, I can't see much of a future for old comic art from books involving old TV shows. Does anyone really want that page from Camp Runamuck, or old Car 54 art? Does poor old Sal join the ranks of the forgotten? Should Joe Jusko deserve a slot in the halls of infamy? And no, Phantom Stranger art does not make the list, but some of the Trinity of Sin art is real garbage. Otherwise, have fun. The more defamatory, the better.

One last thing, skip the commissions and the like on eBay or elsewhere. Too easy.

 

Edited July 17, 2021 by Rick2you2

[Timely]

I think there is a distinction between “bad” art vs unpopular art. Although, bad art is usually unpopular, but not always!

[aokartman]

I thought my Blondie 1950s art by Chic Young was in the dustbin of history, but there have been some decent sales recently, so sometimes art can go down, then return to its former glory in some collectors' eyes.  David

[PhilipB2k17]

37 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Okay, so the title is a little exaggerated. But after seeing the thread on the "Greatest OA in Existence", and how it involves what may be the most valuable works out there, I started to wonder what art would be least likely to appreciate, or even depreciate over the years. By artist, topic or subject matter, whatever comes to mind.

For example, I can't see much of a future for old comic art from books involving old TV shows. Does anyone really want that page from Camp Runamuck, or old Car 54 art? I also don't see much of a future for commissions involving Game of Thrones (Reek, anyone, please?). Does poor old Sal join the ranks of the forgotten? Should Joe Jusko deserve a slot in the halls of infamy? And no, Phantom Stranger art does not make the list, but some of the Trinity of Sin art is real garbage. Otherwise, have fun. The more defamatory, the better.

Bad pornographic pinups on eBay. 

[Rick2you2]

10 minutes ago, PhilipB2k17 said:

Bad pornographic pinups on eBay. 

Yea, too easy. I think I'll take out commissions as a fit subject. Let's stick to published pages, covers and strips. Not so sure we should include political cartoons or art from "Men's magazines" either, since they are also pretty dead and are likely to stay there (with some rare exceptions).

Edited July 17, 2021 by Rick2you2

[Rick2you2]

33 minutes ago, Timely said:

I think there is a distinction between “bad” art vs unpopular art. Although, bad art is usually unpopular, but not always!

I agree with you, which was an indirect subject in the other thread, too. But just as that thread focused on value, let's continue in that vein.

[Will_K]

If you put together "worst" and "value" (meaning worth), you get "worst value" ( $0.00 ).  I'm sure an argument can be made for negative value.  But almost all art is closer to $0.00 than the current all-time high price. 

There were so many publishers in the Golden Age.  And a decent amount of the original art survives.  But the great, great majority of that has very little value (objectively).  The Golden Age exceptions include splashes, GGA and any art that features characters that are generally known today.

[vodou]

9 minutes ago, Will_K said:

But almost all art is closer to $0.00 than the current all-time high price. 

Interesting comment. Your opinion is that the market will broadly fall more than 50% ("...closer to $0.00...") from here?

[Readcomix]

18 minutes ago, Will_K said:

If you put together "worst" and "value" (meaning worth), you get "worst value" ( $0.00 ).  I'm sure an argument can be made for negative value.  But almost all art is closer to $0.00 than the current all-time high price. 

There were so many publishers in the Golden Age.  And a decent amount of the original art survives.  But the great, great majority of that has very little value (objectively).  The Golden Age exceptions include splashes, GGA and any art that features characters that are generally known today.

Rather have bland GA than Liefeld manboobs and baby feet. 

[Will_K]

10 minutes ago, vodou said:

Interesting comment. Your opinion is that the market will broadly fall more than 50% ("...closer to $0.00...") from here?

I'm not making market predictions.  I think it was you or maybe @ESeffinga (?) who mentioned the idea that art is generally more crappy than good.  And I think that was in terms of aesthetics.

I'm just applying that idea to dollars and cents.

[vodou]

1 minute ago, Will_K said:

I think it was you or maybe @ESeffinga (?) who mentioned the idea that art is generally more crappy than good.  And I think that was in terms of aesthetics.

Both of us more than once over the years here.

1 minute ago, Will_K said:

I'm just applying that idea to dollars and cents.

If I'm reading correctly that you're applying aesthetics to dollars and cents...that's not going to work out. Because: fanboy nostalgia. That's what drives the money, not aesthetics. We aestheticians enjoy the relatives steals we get every single day while fanboys chase god-awful (and I'm being kind) Herb Trimpe "anything". In 40 years (since August 1981) I've never seen a single Herb Trimpe anything that I'd pay market for, gross gross gross. And now I grab my umbrella cuz...tomatoes be flyin' on this fan site  

[Readcomix]

10 minutes ago, vodou said:

Both of us more than once over the years here.

If I'm reading correctly that you're applying aesthetics to dollars and cents...that's not going to work out. Because: fanboy nostalgia. That's what drives the money, not aesthetics. We aestheticians enjoy the relatives steals we get every single day while fanboys chase god-awful (and I'm being kind) Herb Trimpe "anything". In 40 years (since August 1981) I've never seen a single Herb Trimpe anything that I'd pay market for, gross gross gross. And now I grab my umbrella cuz...tomatoes be flyin' on this fan site  

I won’t hurl tomatoes because that’s sadly a very reasonable opinion on much of the material. The nostalgia factor certainly mitigates; he was drawing Godzilla and Shogun Warriors at a time when a lot of the right people were 8 to 12 years old. (And thanks to Dan Green that’s not his worst stuff.) He was also a top tier creator when ranking by who is/was nicest to fans— he is sorely missed by many of us in that regard.

Herb also came in at a time when Marvel was also welcoming Steranko, Adams and Starlin - he broke into the big leagues as a very serviceable player among a bunch of future all-stars. Off the top of my head, I think his stuff looked best inked by Marie Severin; of course who inks makes a big difference in finished product, but Herb moreso than a lot of guys seemed to vary widely by inker.

[Will_K]

8 minutes ago, vodou said:

If I'm reading correctly that you're applying aesthetics to dollars and cents...

I think that was the general premise of the topic.  Although maybe @Rick2you2 did not explicitly link aesthetics to value at the beginning.  But later, he did refer to the other topic where "greatest" was sometimes linked to monetary value.  And actually, I was expecting him to dump on D ick Dillin when I first saw he started this topic. 

10 minutes ago, vodou said:

And now I grab my umbrella cuz...tomatoes be flyin' on this fan site  

Ha-ha. 

-----

I think we can all agree that looking at regularly monthly published titles, you're not going to get 12 "Killing Joke"s every year.  You're not going to get a "Watchmen" every year.  You're not going to get 3 "Dark Knight Returns" every year.  You may get a certain level of art quality in monthly title but you probably can't get super broad nostalgia every month.  EVERY issue of a monthly title can't be special.  KJ, Watchmen and DKR were limited to a certain length because you can't maintain that stuff indefinitely.

[Rick2you2]

9 minutes ago, vodou said:

Both of us more than once over the years here.

If I'm reading correctly that you're applying aesthetics to dollars and cents...that's not going to work out. Because: fanboy nostalgia. That's what drives the money, not aesthetics. We aestheticians enjoy the relatives steals we get every single day while fanboys chase god-awful (and I'm being kind) Herb Trimpe "anything". In 40 years (since August 1981) I've never seen a single Herb Trimpe anything that I'd pay market for, gross gross gross. And now I grab my umbrella cuz...tomatoes be flyin' on this fan site  

Tomatoes won’t fly from me, that’s for sure. I still can’t believe the predicted price of that X-men panel page by Byrne. Purely as an aesthetic, I’m underwhelmed, and I like a lot of what Byrne brings to the table. But estimates of $100,000? If that’s the market, then what is in the future bottom? That’s why I framed this topic as I did. Yet virtually unnoticed, some lovely Kaluta work has been bought and sold cheaply because it wasn’t fan fave work. So, since you raised the subject of Trimpe, where will he end up on the price spectrum in 20 years? My guess is, meh, but he’s not an artist of interest to me.

[Rick2you2]

11 minutes ago, Will_K said:

I think that was the general premise of the topic.  Although maybe @Rick2you2 did not explicitly link aesthetics to value at the beginning.  But later, he did refer to the other topic where "greatest" was sometimes linked to monetary value.  And actually, I was expecting him to dump on D ick Dillin when I first saw he started this topic. 

 

Sticking purely to future worth, not aesthetics, I doubt Dillin will hold up well over time, but it won’t sink into the toilet, either. While I am not impressed with his work on titles such as JLA, I think his output on JLA will give him some price protection. Artwork that will suffer will be by artists like Jerry Grandinetti. 

[Will_K]

Certain artists are objectively good / great.  A few artists benefited greatly from having had really good inkers.  Some artists benefited from having worked on certain titles / characters.  Others benefited from being good enough or better than the average artist working at the same time.  Or a combination.  I'm not going to name names because... flying tomatoes.

And most were just putting in their best effort (no judgement).

[aokartman]

6 minutes ago, Rick2you2 said:

Sticking purely to future worth, not aesthetics, I doubt Dillin will hold up well over time, but it won’t sink into the toilet, either. While I am not impressed with his work on titles such as JLA, I think his output on JLA will give him some price protection. Artwork that will suffer will be by artists like Jerry Grandinetti. 

Stop dumping on my Dillin!  JLA 100, inked by Giella.  David

[Timely]

2 minutes ago, aokartman said:

Stop dumping on my Dillin!  JLA 100, inked by Giella.  David

I’d buy that for a Dollar!

[Rick2you2]

2 minutes ago, aokartman said:

Stop dumping on my Dillin!  JLA 100, inked by Giella.  David

This one is actually good, even though Batman must have superpowers to pull off that leg kick without falling down. But, I didn't say he was the one who will be worth least in the future. In terms of pricing, his JLA work will give him price protection. Who (or what subjects) won't hold value later? 

[Rick2you2]

11 minutes ago, Will_K said:

Certain artists are objectively good / great.  A few artists benefited greatly from having had really good inkers.  Some artists benefited from having worked on certain titles / characters.  Others benefited from being good enough or better than the average artist working at the same time.  Or a combination.  I'm not going to name names because... flying tomatoes.

And most were just putting in their best effort (no judgement).

Ah, but that's the point of this topic--naming names (and titles). Your judgment is what will make this fun.